Margaret Sullivan, columnist for The Washington Post:
When NPR announced last month that it would no longer feature comments from readers on its website, general rejoicing followed.
“Good riddance — and everybody else should do the same” was the tone of the response I saw on Twitter. USA Today columnist Rem Rieder, noting that other news organizations are moving away from comments as well, wrote, “Their disappearance is welcome.” And even NPR’s ombudswoman, Elizabeth Jensen, wrote that the move made sense to her, since such a small slice of the audience was participating.
I disagree. I find value in reader comments that can’t be adequately reproduced elsewhere. The argument that the conversation has migrated to Facebook and Twitter is flawed. Those are good places for discussion, but they are no substitute for having discussion take place where the story itself lives. I’m convinced that many smart readers with something to contribute will not follow a story onto social media to talk about it. News organizations should fix online comments rather than ditch them.
I agree. There is no substitute for having the conversation where the story lives. There’s a sense of community that develops when old hands with long memories and weigh in, point out errors, spar with each other in a healthy way, and move the conversation along.
The hard part is keeping out the trolls and spam. That takes vigilance.
I totally understand why NPR and others have gotten rid of comments. At a certain level of popularity, keeping out the trolls and spam becomes unmanageable. And that’s a shame. I love the Loop community. They call me on my mistakes, which helps all of us, and they have my back when the trolls come.
We will always have your back, Dave. 🙂
The problem is online comments on many sites are flooded with people commenting just to stroke their ego. They aren’t interested in learning anything, they refuse to admit they’re wrong. When pressed to acknowledge a point they change the subject, attack personally, or just repeat lies with “evidence” from sketchy web sites that use the same sleazy tactics as they do. Heck, people still comment on vaccination articles citing Wakefield’s bogus study. It’s become a cesspool.
And when the moderator removes a trollish comment, the commenter comes back crying censorship.
If I want to read a comment, it’s to learn something new about the subject of the article, or discuss the merits (or lack thereof) of the article with mature debate, arguing with points of evidence and staying on topic. That’s so hard to find.
I’m very interested in seeing how Civil https://www.civilcomments.com) works out. It looks promising.
“At a certain level of popularity, keeping out the trolls and spam becomes unmanageable.”
More accurately, it becomes so time consuming that you need to hire one or more full time moderators, which few, if any, organizations are willing to pay for.
Comments without active moderation become toxic. Comments with active moderation creates a friendly community that provides far more value than the original content alone.
yeah, the conversation has moved to Facebook and Twitter line that we hear when some news org does shows either ignorance (of the fact that tweets especially aren’t a conversation) or contempt for their audience, that they think we’re dumb enough to buy that line.
I do think that one of the issues with news org comments is that the people writing the story don’t participate in comments. Perhaps this is tied to scale, but the best behaved comments are those where the writers and site owners take part, even lightly, in the comments. Here, Fred Wilson’s AVC, John Scalzi’s Whatever, etc. For all of the talk news organizations do about adapting to a new, changing future, I almost never see a reporter participating in the comment threads about their stories.
Just wish your comments were available on the phone. 🙂
Yeah, what’s up with these comments not appearing on mobile? Disqus is certainly compatible, so why not letting us at least see the comments on mobile?
Jim explained to me on Twitter. I really hope they reconsider: https://twitter.com/jdalrymple/status/773282878239059968
I second that.
I don’t want to talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!
Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj222d:
On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
!mj222d:
➽➽
➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash222ShopMagazineGetPay$97Hour… ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!mj222d:….,…..
“when old hands with long memories and weigh in”
Maybe remove the “and”?
I agree, comments are great, and they add a great sense of community on sites like this one. Keep it up.